jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Mr Matt
Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself....
and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by jfd15:the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT by lying to the other 98% of the populace and decieved them. -- Fixed for you  |
|
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... And the other 98% didnt earn theirs?
I don't believe they should be taxed more, they should just be taxed on all of it like the others.
I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. Why would you have an abrupt, two-levels of progressive taxation?
Let's say your level between 0% and 20% would be $16k. The premise for choosing that level would be that the dollar earned below $16k is essential to a basic, poverty level of living. But, the very next dollar above $16k isn't?
That leads to the absurd position that the peanut butter, 1978 Ford Pinto and rented room that the $1k (above $16k) buys is just as "essential" and "basic" as the caviar, Ferrari, and McMansion purchased with the $1 million (above $16k).
The idea of two rates as a "flat tax" has never made sense to me. It's based upon an appeal to "fairness" (that not all standards of living are equally essential and basic). And then proceeds to create an unfair condition (that all standards of living are equally essential and basic).
I don't see what the benefit would be. If you're going to require people to report their income, and apply two rates (0% and 20%), it doesn't require any work to make those abrupt rates more progressive (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%). |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to GroovyPhoenx
hmm, how did they do that? does lying pay big bucks? who is hiring for "liars"?
this is just silly b.s.... |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:said by jfd15:and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... And the other 98% didnt earn theirs? I don't believe they should be taxed more, they should just be taxed on all of it like the others. I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. sure, other 98% earned theirs also....but i'm not down with the whole "the more you earn, the more(and higher %) we're entitled to steal" b.s.... |
|
